Public Knowledge, Allies File To Defend Net Neutrality, Consumer Protections in Sixth Circuit

Brief defends the FCC's reclassification of broadband as a Title II service.

Today, Public Knowledge joined Free Press, New America’s Open Technology Institute, the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in filing an intervenor’s brief with the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to support the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules

The rules reclassify broadband as a Title II telecommunications service, reopening the door for many important consumer protections in addition to net neutrality. In August, the Sixth Circuit Court stayed the rules while it decides the merits of Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC, a suit filed by internet service providers opposing the rules.

The following can be attributed to John Bergmayer, Legal Director at Public Knowledge:

“This case is not just about arcane regulatory classifications. It’s about ensuring the internet remains an open platform where users can use the content, services, and apps of their choice. The FCC has long had the authority to classify broadband as a telecommunications service, and this classification best reflects the realities of how consumers and businesses use the internet today.

“The internet is not just a tool for communication. It’s the backbone of our economy and society. Without proper protections in place, large broadband providers could prioritize their own services or those that pay them more, undermining competition and stifling innovation. The FCC’s Title II framework protects against these harms and gives the FCC the authority it needs for broadband oversight. 

“Moreover, this case is about more than just the future of the open internet – it’s about whether agencies like the FCC can continue to do their job effectively. Agencies are tasked with applying laws passed by Congress to rapidly changing industries like broadband, where new challenges arise all the time. By statute, as recently reconfirmed by the Supreme Court, courts are required to defer to agency fact-finding. While the Supreme Court has narrowed the deference given to agencies on questions of law, the Court also confirmed that courts are still required to defer to agencies when Congress has expressly delegated authority to an agency. As our brief explains, that’s what Congress has done here.”

You may view the brief for more information.

Members of the media may contact Communications Director Shiva Stella with inquiries, interview requests, or to join the Public Knowledge press list at shiva@publicknowledge.org or 405-249-9435.